Taken from the steam forums. Really surprised they have not posted it here yet.

"Greetings Admirals,

As the launch of Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 approaches, we’re finalizing the campaigns whose first hours will be playable in the next Beta. In order to gather some fresh feedback, we’re looking for new community testers!

The testing session will last until Monday, 14th of January, and will grant access to the the full content of the game. We want the testers to focus on the three campaigns (Imperium, Necron, Tyranid).

If you’re interested in this playtest session, please fill this form HERE

We’ll select 20-30 players, and send you a key by email.

Please be aware that testers will be under Non Disclosure Agreement, meaning they can’t spread any screenshots, info or videos of this version of the game. We want to polish the game as much as possible without spoiling the fun at release!

Anyone else curious that they took two villain factions, the two least human (and least human MOTIVATED) villain factions, for the other two campaigns? I know there are some niche Tyranid fans out there, but if they had to do aliens, I'd have rather seen Tau, or Aeldari (including Drukhari, however you spell that). In fact, it seems dead obvious to me that, with the Ynnead plot line, to do an Eldar campaign, where you start out as an Ynnead affiliated Craftworld, and over the campaign your fleet integrates all three Aelderi races, allowing a quasi-multi faction campaign (showcasing three factions instead of 1), while covering a race from the first game who had no campaign, and basically giving a campaign that fans of all three factions can play and enjoy.

I understand why they had to do Imperials (and hope and expect they're actually more what I described above: imperial/adept mech/space marines together), since they're the humans, we're human. Yawn. Could have done Chaos this time around, but okay. I can see doing Necrons as something different (though would rather have seen the Chaos side of the war, but with only three campaigns, that seems like an unlikely choice), but Tau/Aelderi/Orks would all have been equally justifiable, without the advantages of Tau (two types of fleet, kind of human/optimistic faction), or Aelderi (as mentioned above, plus witchery/psychic aesthetic and setting stuff), which make them obviously better to me (just because, if nothing else, they allow more fleet variety for an extended campaign, and interesting fleet building options that aren't available in multiplayer).

@underdarklord I think the reason is because they are the races that were slated to get dlc in the first but didnt because the dev abandoned it to make this one. Also there are probably more fanboys for nids and necks than tau or name your eldar faction. Chaos i would bet would be the next campaign they release if they decide to release campaigns as dlcs. And imps are obligatory mostly because their story in the GW universe is the most fleshed out.

@imptastic More fanboys for Necrons, or Tyranids (individually mind), than for Aelderi and Drukkari (how I detest these names btw), and all three fleets they represent, combined? I doubt that so much. If they were such fan favourites, why would they not have been first or second DLC goals of the first game?

As to including campaigns for them here, because they are DLCs that never came to pass. . . what? Only one of the main factions included with the base game had a campaign, why would the fact that some DLC factions never came out at all make them a higher priority for a campaign than factions that were just as neglected in that area? I can see it happening, as a lazy excuse, but I can't see it as a meaningful reasoned one. I mean, to me, Necrons make more sense than 'Nids from a lore/impact/story building reason, but way LESS than basically every faction when it comes to gameplay (you've seen how few ships they have, that will not lead to a plethora of builds and tens of hours of fresh fleet-based gameplay).

@underdarklord nids play drastically different than the other factions for drastically different lore reasons which is why they would make a more immersive campaign imo. Drukari didnt even have enough ships for the game because they are so under fleshed out by gw so them getting a campaign off the bat was never really going to happen and they are not really able to just toss them together with the other eldar races simply because in the lore they are barely/not amicable unlike the imp factions that seem be more inclined to band together when shit hits the fan. Tau would be a good option but as they are not to different from Imps in play style doesnt hold the appeal of the nids. Necs are definitely fan favorites and the reason the dlcs from the last matter is because the community was polled as to which should be released next.

@imptastic Are you not up to date with the lore? The Ynnead worshipers, the Ynnari (I think), are literally Craftworld Eldar + Harlequins + Drukkari + Corsairs. A campaign using them all together is not only possible, but an active part of the lore. Keep in mind that the game blurb specifically calls out The Gathering Storm, which is the event that includes the Eldar Yvraine being recruited by Ynnead, and the creation of the Ynnari from her core of followers. If this game did NOT call out that period, I wouldn't be as dumbfounded by the obvious opportunity being ignored, but it does, and so I do.

'Nids play differently, that's neat, but they are not relatable, and cannot tell complex stories. They are an all-consuming force, more so than even the Zerg from Starcraft 1 (let alone the human-ness that is included in the Zerg in SC2 thanks to Kerrigan, and the Queens being more independent than the Cerebrates), that seems to be operating on a biological imperative to consume all life. Their different play style makes them a breath of fresh air in skirmish/multiplayer, but their singular alien identity that does not include motivations/emotions/drama in the way humanity, or the more 'human' aliens do, makes a solid story laughable (ever play the Tyranid story in Dawn of War II: Retribution? If not, I suggest looking to it as an example of what I'm talking about; the only reason it wasn't god awful in that campaign, was that all the stories were relatively shallow).

The community was polled, and Necrons/'Nids were both less popular than Space Marines, or Tau. That alone is evidence that Tau would be more of a fan favourite. As to their Imperial familiarity: I can't really agree. They have real oddball tech like the Kroot sphere, that doesn't feel at all Imperial, and they have 180 front side arcs on semi-slow ships, that requires very different movement, and internal fleet interaction, than an Imperial armada. They're more like Imperials than 'Nids, or the various Eldar, but less so than Chaos, Orks, and arguably even Necrons. And again, a poll as to a race to include in a game has no substantial weight in deciding what campaigns to include, because the race being included in the first place is happening, the ultimate goal is already being accomplished.

@underdarklord the ynnead worshipers are a rather small faction and do not control vast fleets they while on friendly terms with the eldar factions they dont command them, they are also on friendly terms with the imps so should we see an imp/eldar/durkari campaign? The nids story from what they released is going to be told through the victims communications. as they consume the universe so i think it will be very interesting. the dow 2 retri representation of the nids in the campaign was garbo but if you look at all the other campaigns in the game its not like they didnt hold their own all the campaigns in that game were under fleshed. i think space marines was the devs decision before the polling, tau im not sure of but as i stated before they are very impish in play styles the only difference is facing the enemy vs broadside circling. As for necrons from what i saw in the beta they broke them... they shouldnt be playing at all like they do now so they do come off as impish in play style but that a self inflected wound by the dev.

@underdarklord You might have heard that the tyranid campaing is a story told from the perspective of their victims. Could be an interesting twist to the usual formula. I am personally happy there is a campaign for them out of the three.

Tau big guns and high tech are popular yes, but if the story is not centered on them they leave little space to tell a story because on a galactic level, they are a fart in the wind compared to the other factions.

@imptastic The Ynnari are friends with a tiny fragment of the Imperium. I'd be fine with including Imperial ships, particularly as allies, objectives, and the like, in an Ynnari campaign. They're not a huge faction, but they don't really have to be (no version of any campaign is going to be having 50+ capital ship fights) to tell a good story with them. Heck, there's no need to make their campaign based around domination of planets or systems, and it could be more wandering/completing objectives (I'm vaguely thinking Hordes from Total War: Warhammer here. Vaguely.), and interfering with other factions (including the other Eldar, and Imperials: they've got a justification for combat against any faction).

@underdarklord You might have heard that the tyranid campaing is a story told from the perspective of their victims. Could be an interesting twist to the usual formula. I am personally happy there is a campaign for them out of the three.

Tau big guns and high tech are popular yes, but if the story is not centered on them they leave little space to tell a story because on a galactic level, they are a fart in the wind compared to the other factions.

Neat. Story told from perspective of victims. Okay. Still no opportunity for conflict that isn't dominance, none for alliances, no internal conflict. There's also nothing preventing the other stories from having victim-tales included, that would be enhanced by the more freedom you had in choosing the fate of those victims (Tyranids just eat them). A story told using victim perspectives is basically a horror, and there's a reason the POV in those is, most of the time (by that I mean most of the time during the story we're following a victim-protagonist) set with a/the victim(s): because we know the goal of the scary thing, even if we don't know its motives, and that goal is to kill/maim/end its target (plus, at least most horror protagonists are able to forge connections, emotions, and alliances, to justify seeing from their perspective, the Tyranids don't even have that).

The Tyranids make a good middle part of a story, a dark part, where things look doomed, but when you are literally playing to enforce that doom, it doesn't make the personal stories of who you're dooming more interesting than a story that is embodied from your own perspective, and opportunities for conflict. Let's look at the popular Dawn of War: Dark Crusade for a comparison. You have a story for your faction, it's good, and you also learn more about the other factions, and their motives, particularly when you invade their stronghold, and at the end of the game when you learn about the consequences they suffer. That adds to an existing narrative, but if the faction you picked didn't have life to it other than 'win fights', then the already somewhat grindy campaign would become emotionless from the perspective of your own faction, the one you've chosen to play, and the one you are naturally inclined to connect to because your agency in the game derives from them. I'm not saying that the Tyranid campaign can't be enjoyable, or tell interesting victim stories even, but by the nature of the 'Nids, it cannot generate the same emotional highs and lows based on the agency of the point-of-view (which in games is uniquely your own agency) characters/protagonists. I can tell stories of my victims in a story-free (or mostly story free) 4x game like Stellaris, or Endless Space 2, through emergent narrative in a game, and am likely to be more invested, because I made a variety of decisions, not just 'consume all before me' to get to that point. Arguably, the kind of story you seem excited for, is actually much better in a non-game environment (think horror movie, or novel), than in a game, where the choice of subject here (Tyranids) forces a specific story, in an environment that is at its best when it provides more choice, and more freedom.

Well, that got longer than I expected. Didn't realize the horror connection until I started writing, and ditto the loss to emergent narrative that a singularly motivated entity creates. Sorry if I went on too long. The TL;DR is, I guess, that even if the victims are a source of story, that doesn't somehow eliminate the weaknesses Tyranids naturally have as a point-of-view.

im just going to try and be polite and say your ideas about nids are oversimplified and ignorant
they are the best race in the 40k universe and everyone should love them if they would just look beyond their exterior

@underdarklord they restored guilliman who sits at the head of all the imps military affairs.. not a tiny fragment, as far as sway they have about as much sway with the imps as they have with gamora. since the campaigns are set in a grand strategy backdrop it makes since to go for factions interested in galaxy wide dominance, all the ynnari want is the last finger. That is not to say they wouldnt make an excellent "ally" for other races in their campaigns they just arnt big enough to warrant a grand strategy campaign.

@adm_janus i could get behind that but when telling a story like the ynnari's you want a platform more like the DoW series as most of what the ynnari do is land unit based. they are literally looking for the crone swords, so they are oriented more for rapid strike/infiltration not really big fleet based combat. There is room for the ynnari to eventually take over aeldari/drukari affairs completely but doing that before the GW guys do it is probably not gonna fly. the Tau however would be a great canidate for an experimental campaign as they are not really large enough to play the galactic domination game, you could argue they would indoctrinate other races but it would be a tough sell imo.

tau chaos and eldar make sense if the game does well enough for campaign dlc
farsight has one of those croneswords so good reason for conflict and eldar to be in that sector
but meanwhile mortarion is using the 5th expansion gate to attack them so they might consider negotiations
but none of this is in the Aegis Ocularis

ofcourse if its mortarion chaos might be ai controlled so people wont complain that they cant play the chaos flavor they want
chaos also tends to raid and try to head to terra instead of making a small empire
instead have orks be the third playable faction because they are also very present in that sector
would be fun

@imptastic I just don't see why the campaign has to be about complete galactic domination, or even domination. This is not a 4x game, this is not even a grand strategy, despite your use of the word (Stellaris is grand strategy: unless there's going to be a TON more features in the campaign than I have any faith in this dev to produce, there is no way it approaches that scale): this is an RTS, with the potential for persistent units. It is best compared to similar games, like DOW: Dark Crusade, or Starcraft. While a map, with territory, and similar mechanics are nice, they aren't even necessary (though some kind of army manager is).

A tight, objective driven, campaign, with opportunities for internal drama, and a few key choices (combined with the army organisation choices), is all you need. There can be 'bonus' combat, like in Dark Crusade, via defense of territory, bonus objectives, etc... but they aren't necessary to make a good story. Tau would make a good campaign because there are a lot of 'small' domains that are still large (galaxies are damn huge), and yet don't affect the broader story that GW strangles into stasis for so long. Ynnari would be able to have a good campaign because there's an epic quest, clear objectives, and opportunities for major alliances between groups that are ever in conflict (and in the case of this game, that means co-existence of assets). Necrons are, not great from a ship/asset use perspective, but at least they can have somewhat interesting, dynasty building, political power-gaming internal issues, and more, from a story perspective. Orks are a bit flat, but stand-outs like most Warlords, are able to be pretty interesting, even if most of their army is not. Chaos is basically as varied as the Imperium, as long as they don't focus on the zealots (Abaddon, Kharn, most of the primarchs, and others) for the story, in which case they become as boring as Ultra-smurfs are at their worst.

im just going to try and be polite and say your ideas about nids are oversimplified and ignorant
they are the best race in the 40k universe and everyone should love them if they would just look beyond their exterior

You're not being polite, you're just making a claim without evidence. Tell me how the Tyranids are different than a single-minded driven (within splinters, they adhere to some kind of survival of the fittest mentality between splinters) force, where that drive is an ultimate expression of survival (take all the resources, live the longest)? Consuming planets beyond the point where any biology persists is SUPER DUMB for a long-term (read: eternal) survival strategy, but it's a great strategy for eliminating competition, or in other words, destroying all other life. So that's the Tyranid goal: destroy all other life, evolve into the best forms possible for survival as a group (the latter is the reason they have internecine conflict). If I'm ignorant, inform me, don't just say it and pretend you're doing me a favour in not supporting your position.

As to 'best race in 40k', from the perspective of uniqueness, they're pretty up there, they're also an interesting tabletop army due to their organic nature, but as to motive, they're boring: they are no better than animals, except that they intentionally operate as a varied group, instead of being an ecosystem that develops without innate cooperation. They don't struggle with a constant burning passion to commit far harder to their emotions than humans (Eldar), they don't persist in a universe that is innately hostile, and largely well established compare to them while dealing with unusual caste dynamics that aren't exactly fair, but may be the only way to survive (Tau), they aren't a large civilization separated culturally by the vast distances of space, struggling with the growing psionic potential of their species that greatly endangers them, but also is their only mechanism for overcoming the problems inters-stellar distances (and some enemies) present (Imperium), and they aren't an ancient civilisation that has hibernated through serious existential problems in the past, but who find themselves hugely outnumbered, surrounded by the psykers they so despise, and eternally suffering civil war due to, among other things, the egos of their ruling class (Necrons). Tyranids... kill/infect/consume, to survive, and to evolve, in order to keep surviving, and keep consuming. It has a certain purity to it, that's true, for a threat that can be truly terrifying, but as any kind of protagonist or even just point-of-view? They are basic as all heck, and lack any of the emotional qualities that makes a good story (fear, pride, envy, hate, hope, morality/conscience, sacrifice, revenge, joy, sadness, etc. . .). Can their victims be emotional? Yes. But there's no emotional investment possible in their emotions, because they have none. What makes a good villain (and I'm just not going to argue that you are playing the villain if you are playing Tyranids), is that they don't see themselves that way. The Tyranids don't see themselves as anything. They just ARE, and DO, based on a singular drive, not a complex assortment of interlocking, and constantly conflicting, drives.

@underdarklord I think i will link you post to you after release because you seem to not have read all the info released and communicated on these forums about the campaign.... everything is pointing towards a 4x/total war like game over a liner starcraft like game.

Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 boasts three fully-fledged grand strategy campaigns, telling “what if” scenarios of what might happen when a particularly competent commander – you – is in charge of the Imperium, Necron, or Tyranid fleets in the wake of the Fall of Cadia. Each will create a very different future for the galaxy in the 41st millennium and beyond, and your choices define it from the very beginning.

The worlds you invade (or consume) are unique, producing resources and providing various benefits and drawbacks to your forces. Shipyards are needed to rebuild your destroyed fleets, admirals fight and die to protect their homes, and you must expand to continually increase your naval strength and bring more ships to bear.

As you conquer the Aegis Ocularis, unique story missions will be the key moments in your various wars, each unlocking more of the galaxy map. Your choice of faction will affect everything, deciding much more than just which units you have access to – for example the Tyranids eat whole worlds and eventually leave them desolate, while the Necrons have special methods of crossing the stars not available to the mortal races.

@imptastic You misunderstand. I know that's what the three campaigns that have been announced are going to be like. It's still not 4x or GS level (though it's closer to Europa Universalis, in terms of systems, since armies and simple things like taxes are your main concern in that game, so maybe I could be convinced to call if grand strategy once I get a more hands-on feel for it). I think the make/break point on it being grand strategy is if there's any kind of economy outside simple make x/turn, and if there's some kind of diplomacy system (including at least rudimentary territory exchange). 4x scale would require in-depth tech trees, diplomacy of course, probably some kind of city/planet upgrades system, a variety of resources, trade, a degree of open-endedness, and at least two non-military non-storyline victory conditions (4x are not really story games, they're open sandbox complex strategy option simulators).

I'm not saying anything against what it IS, that's set. I'm saying that it didn't have to be that way, and that outside of that preconception, there are a lot of good options for telling a story. I definitely don't expect this to change at all either. That said, it would have been childs-play if designing 'what-if' scenarios as story, to do a Ynnari ascension campaign, or Tau major expansion campaign (or even an Ork Waaagh, however more boring it would be). The Ynnari are even intimately tied into the Fall of Cadia, and the reinforcement of the Imperium (which obviously Tau/Orks are not, both avoiding Chaos like the plague, largely unfriendly with the Imperium, and in the Tau's case, being far away), if for some reason you want to absolutely make any campaign involved in that plot thread. So it's not like the way they seem to have chosen to develop their campaign somehow eliminated the other factions as choices.

The game is definitely sounding a bit Total War/Dark Crusade style: take territory, make sure to defend it, there's some unique stuff (buildings/heroes/units), but I have yet to see if we'll have even the depth of Total War tech trees, or hero options/leveling.

I think the game will be a bit of an hybrid. While we have a lot of the classic rts staples, there are no base building, resource harvesting or tech trees making it more of a tactical game during the battles.

The campaigns open up a lot of possibilities and we will have to wait and see but my guess is that we are going to get a bunch of scripted missions that drive the story forward plus a host of optional missions with the purpose of expanding you dominion/fleet.

@underdarklord you seem familiar with the lore so i have to assume you recognize how difficult it is to add "new" avenues for stories in their licensed content. Something like the ynnari who it is obvious will have major impacts on the future of the 40k universe is going to be hard for them to do. I would love a campaign featuring them as i find them to be one of the more interesting components of the 40k universe that said nothing about them screams void fleet combatants. Its just not what there current incarnation is and for this game to define them as such is not something i see GW allowing. from what ive heard of the campaigns they are release a lot of the elements you alluded to are in it. I.e. resource management, tech trees, and territory holding. but im sure u realize that dark crusade and total war games are considered grand strategy so i guess you would call them grand strategy after all. To the larger issue of y the domination thing matters its more or less an issue of being able to reuse assets y go through the process of making a new system when you already have a working system. on a side not no one said it was going to be 4x they just said it would have 4x elements.